Scottish Independance & Possible Huge Oil Discovery

a reply to: uncommitted
Gordon Brown started the world economic downturn? Who knew he had such power?
The problem with Brown (and pretty much every world finance minister) is that they only hear the lessons from Keynes they want to hear. The increased
deficit during the downturn was absolutely the right thing to do and saved us from a much worse recession. Not cutting spending/increasing taxation
when the going was good was the mistake.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: uncommitted
Gordon Brown started the world economic downturn? Who knew he had such power?
The problem with Brown (and pretty much every world finance minister) is that they only hear the lessons from Keynes they want to hear. The increased
deficit during the downturn was absolutely the right thing to do and saved us from a much worse recession. Not cutting spending/increasing taxation
when the going was good was the mistake.

I appreciate the sarcasm, I was responding in kind to another post. My personal opinion for what it's worth is very much like your own, the previous
government actually increased public spending hugely and if it didn't promote it certainly didn't warn against the rising level of personal debt
never mind national debt. I do think Brown helped make things harder in the UK with the gold sales and the effects on UK pensions - but I know
hindsight is a wonderful thing.

You make a good point, the recession is/was worldwide, I'm fairly sure a combination of foodbanks and foodstamps can be found in most western
countries..... yet some people seem to think the only people responsible are the present UK government.

a reply to: Soloprotocol
It always amazes me that so many on the no side are obsessed with nationality. They accuse the yes campaign of all the worse aspects of nationalism
yet every reference I hear about being patriotic comes from better together and they obsesses about Blair being born in Scotland or that Cameron has a
Scottish surname.

a reply to: alldaylong
Does that make him Scottish? As the risk of Goodwining myself assigning a racial identity based around of place of birth or parentage seems a recipe
for disaster.
To me someone is Scottish if they live in Scotland and/or identify Scotland as their home.
Not that any if that really matters as we such judge based on actions and I cant say anything either Blair or Cameron have done suggests they think of
Scotland as their hone.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Soloprotocol
It always amazes me that so many on the no side are obsessed with nationality. They accuse the yes campaign of all the worse aspects of nationalism
yet every reference I hear about being patriotic comes from better together and they obsesses about Blair being born in Scotland or that Cameron has a
Scottish surname.

In England you may be surprised that most people including myself are on the on the fence side. The reason the point about where someone is from comes
up is that so many on the Yes side refer to London (and by extension the rest of the country as that's where our parliament elected from all over the
UK sit) as somehow the root of all evil. It's merely to point out that whatever your woes, don't think they are all down to English people.

a reply to: uncommitted
Wouldn't surprise me at all. Would expect that most English people would be fairly uncommitted (no pun intended).
I don't see why people see London as shirt hand for England, although I appreciate some do and always try and use Westminster instead to be more
specific.
A small number of Scots probably do blame the English fir their woes. Let me be very clear these people are generally morons and belong in the same
category as English who blame French, Europe or elf'n'safety gone mad. Some people just like having someone to blame.
Blaming Westminster on the other hand is a political position, in my view perfectly legitimate although I am willing to hear alternatives.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: uncommitted
Wouldn't surprise me at all. Would expect that most English people would be fairly uncommitted (no pun intended).
I don't see why people see London as shirt hand for England, although I appreciate some do and always try and use Westminster instead to be more
specific.
A small number of Scots probably do blame the English fir their woes. Let me be very clear these people are generally morons and belong in the same
category as English who blame French, Europe or elf'n'safety gone mad. Some people just like having someone to blame.
Blaming Westminster on the other hand is a political position, in my view perfectly legitimate although I am willing to hear alternatives.

Good post, gave you a star. With the Westminster thing, it's a location where elected representatives from all of the UK convene - so to call
Westminster the root of evil is representing all MPs regardless of their political flavour. If it was moved to Birmingham, Leicester, Aberdeen or
Swansea it would be the same group of people democratically elected by their constituency which is why I think it's a bit tiresome.

Now, Whitehall (to represent the civil service that will continue unchanged regardless of the party in power)..... that may be a more fair point if
that's what people really have issues with.

a reply to: uncommitted
I think the issue is more the system at Westminster rather than the individuals (although there are some right gits). Unelected lords, corruption,
overly powerfully party system. Not saying holyrood is perfect by any means but is more democratic and more local to needs of its electorate.
If we really did elect mps to represent local constituencies then parliament would work a lot better. As it is we elect them to represent a party and
they are almost totally controlled by whips. (again a few honorable exceptions) .
Whitehall/ civil service is a good point. Never sure how I feel about the idea of a neutral civil service. Nice in principle but not really true.
There is perhaps something to be said for a more American system of appointed advisors who at least are openly political.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: uncommitted
I think the issue is more the system at Westminster rather than the individuals (although there are some right gits). Unelected lords, corruption,
overly powerfully party system. Not saying holyrood is perfect by any means but is more democratic and more local to needs of its electorate.
If we really did elect mps to represent local constituencies then parliament would work a lot better. As it is we elect them to represent a party and
they are almost totally controlled by whips. (again a few honorable exceptions) .
Whitehall/ civil service is a good point. Never sure how I feel about the idea of a neutral civil service. Nice in principle but not really true.
There is perhaps something to be said for a more American system of appointed advisors who at least are openly political.

House of Lords is fairly toothless these days, but it should (repeat should) be something that questions bills put through by government.

With Whitehall, personally I like the notion of a neutral civil service myself, we wouldn't have had Yes Minister/Prime Minister if it didn't exist
which to me would be criminal.

a reply to: uncommitted
Sadly the debate in the lords is often far better than the commons. But still it is undemocratic relic.
Yes minister/prime minister remains not only the funniest but probably one of the most accurate portrayals of British politics ever.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: uncommitted
Sadly the debate in the lords is often far better than the commons. But still it is undemocratic relic.
Yes minister/prime minister remains not only the funniest but probably one of the most accurate portrayals of British politics ever.

That or House of cards, I may have an opinion, but I really couldn't comment

Gordon Brown started the world economic downturn? Who knew he had such power?

The problem with Brown (and pretty much every world finance minister) is that they only hear the lessons from Keynes they want to hear. The increased
deficit during the downturn was absolutely the right thing to do and saved us from a much worse recession. Not cutting spending/increasing taxation
when the going was good was the mistake.

I listened to Gordon Brown's speech in the House of Commons detailing his trickle down economic plan. I had never heard the phrase before but knew
instinctively there was something wrong with that idea. Since then I have heard that it has been used in the past with no succes then either. The
banks should have been taken over at the onset of the financial crisis. I don't like that term either, the only real crisis was that the really
wealthy might have lost their dosh.

The criminals are still in charge and the can is still being kicked down the road. We are living under the lie of austerity and quantitative
easing...making things worse and adding to the misery.

The whole political set up is wrong. Tony Benn said that the Crown really pulls the strings. By 'Crown' he meant Whitehall and the established
institutions. He said that is the word the ministers use.

a reply to: midicon
It amazing when you think of all the industries allowed to wither and die over the last 30 years but the banks where to big to fail.?
Obe of my main reason for voting yes is to get away from the established institutions. Scotland is in a fantastic position if being able to start
again without the violent revolution or upheaval that normally proceeds the start of a new nation state.

The politicians just don't get it. They seem to think that the likes of Miliband, Brown and Balls will somehow rejuvinate the 'no' campaign. They
can't see that it is they who are the problem, it's not just a Tory thing. Unpopular politicians do their cause no favours.

There is also the idea that if they can convince the Scots that Labour will win the next election then that will address the anti-conservative stance
of the SNP. That may have been true some years ago but the Labour party has lost so much credibility after the debacle of Blair and Brown.

The 'no' campaign has shot itself in the foot by the adoption of fear tactics and now they want to offer the carrot of more devolved powers. They
would have been better approaching the whole thing the other way round.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.